2008 President

For those voters who have come of age in the 21st century, the extremely close presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 must seem like the norm. But that is hardly the case. Over the course of American history, there have been more presidential elections decided by landslide margins than have been determined by narrow margins. Of the 46 contests held since nationwide tallies of the popular vote began in the early 1800s: Twenty elections (or 43 percent) have been decided by a landslide margin of 10 percentage points or more. Twelve others (26 percent) have been clear-cut victories settled by margins ranging from 5 to 9.9 percentage points. Fourteen presidential contests (30 percent) have been determined by fewer than 5 percentage points. The 2000 and 2004 elections fit snugly into the latter category. But in considering how unusual this is, ponder the fact that only once before in the nation’s history have there been at least three close presidential elections in a row. That streak occurred in the late 19th century, and ended with the decisive election of 1896 that tilted the political balance toward the Republicans for a generation to come. Might the 2008 election be so definitive? Neither

We have no earthly idea if Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is Obama’s choice for Vice President. All we know is that distinguished reporters who claim to have good sources are calling and saying that Kaine is on the short-short list. Since the Crystal Ball is based in Virginia, and since we have followed Tim Kaine’s career since it began on the Richmond City Council in 1994, we’ll offer our readers a brief precis on what Kaine would add to the ticket, and what he would not, should the rumors prove accurate. As with all potential Veep picks, there are pluses and minuses. Let’s start with Kaine’s advantages: 1. Personal Chemistry There can be little doubt that this is the main reason why Obama is looking at Kaine. The first state governor outside Obama’s Illinois to endorse Obama for President, Kaine was immediately drawn to the Illinois senator because they are two peas in a political pod. Both Harvard Law graduates with Kansas roots, both attorneys with a central focus on civil rights, and both relatively new to the big leagues, Obama and Kaine clearly like one another and enjoy each other’s company. Obama has realized that a modern Vice President

“Too close to call.” “Within the margin of error.” “A statistical dead heat.” If you’ve been following news coverage of the 2008 presidential election, you’re probably familiar with these phrases. Media commentary on the presidential horserace, reflecting the results of a series of new national polls, has strained to make a case for a hotly contested election that is essentially up for grabs. Signs of Barack Obama’s weaknesses allegedly abound. The huge generic Democratic Party advantage is not reflected in the McCain-Obama pairings in national polls. Why, according to the constant refrain, hasn’t Obama put this election away? A large number of Clinton supporters in the primaries refuse to commit to Obama. White working class and senior voters tilt decidedly to McCain. Racial resentment limits Obama’s support among these two critical voting blocs. Enthusiasm among young voters and African-Americans, two groups strongly attracted to Obama, is waning. Blah, blah, blah. While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain’s prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed–historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months–point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic

If you’re a political junkie like me, and if you’re reading this article there’s a pretty good chance you are, then you’re probably addicted to the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls. Where else can you follow the ups and downs of the presidential race every day? I can hardly wait to get my daily fix of Rasmussen every morning and Gallup every afternoon. The folks at Gallup and Rasmussen are certainly providing a valuable service. Beyond just tracking the horserace, the vast numbers of respondents surveyed in these tracking polls have allowed for some fascinating analyses of the preferences of various subgroups within the electorate. Gallup, for example, is posting weekly breakdowns of candidate preference by age, race, gender, education, party, ideology, and church attendance on their website. It’s a real goldmine of information for election watchers. Lately, though, something’s been bothering me about those tracking polls. I’ve had a nagging suspicion for a while that the results of the tracking polls are out of line with the results of other national polls on the presidential race. Not way out of line, but enough to be noticeable, at least to me. So I decided to check on my suspicion by

In their examination of the fundamentals and the polls to this point in the 2008 election, my esteemed colleagues Alan Abramowitz, Tom Mann, and Larry Sabato indicate that they believe that the presidential election is essentially a done deal. As they see the 2008 story developing, Barack Obama will win a comfortable victory, if not in an outright landslide, over John McCain. There are certainly plenty of grounds for optimism in the Democrats’ ranks and even die-hard Republicans must wince when contemplating some of the circumstances surrounding this year’s election. President Bush’s approval ratings are woefully low. Even if media reports are hyperbolic in pronouncing a recession, the economy is slumping. Despite the success of the “surge” in Iraq, most Americans are weary of the war and have settled into very negative views about it. Gas prices have sky-rocketed and seem unlikely to drop back to earth soon. Americans are not happy about the status quo and may be poised to vote for change, whether it is change that they believe in or not. In political science terms, if voters were guided strictly by their retrospective evaluations, they would be ready to throw out the Republicans and hand the keys

“Poll Finds Obama’s Run Isn’t Closing Divide on Race,” reads the headline on the front page of the July 16th New York Times. The article beneath the headline observes that despite Barack Obama’s candidacy, the results of a new CBS/New York Times Poll show that American society is still deeply divided along racial lines. Blacks and whites continue to hold divergent views about the state of race relations in the United States with whites far more optimistic than blacks. Moreover, white and black voters have dramatically different opinions about the nation’s first black presidential candidate. Black voters view Obama much more favorably than white voters. In fact a plurality of white voters in the CBS/New York Times Poll had an unfavorable opinion of Obama. The results of the poll are interesting. But is anyone surprised that Barack Obama’s victory in the Democratic nomination contest has not changed the way blacks and whites view race relations in the United States? Or that black voters have much more positive opinions of a black presidential candidate than white voters? Anyone who was surprised by these findings hasn’t been following the news for the past 40 years. There’s something important missing from the New

Speculation abounds these days about whether this fall’s presidential election will produce a dramatically different electoral map than the virtually static one of the last two contests. Will Colorado and Virginia lead an array of longtime Republican states that might be won this time by Democrat Barack Obama? Or might Michigan and Pennsylvania be in the vanguard of Democratic strongholds picked off by Republican John McCain? Those are among the more intriguing questions as the 2008 general election campaign heats up. But one thing’s for sure: changes in the electoral map require some alterations in the electorate itself. And that seems to be happening. In the 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) where voter affiliation is kept by party, the Democrats have scored perceptible gains since the presidential election of 2004 while the Republicans have suffered significant losses. To be specific, the number of registered Democrats in party registration states has grown by nearly 700,000 since President George W. Bush was reelected in November 2004, while the total of registered Republicans has declined by almost 1 million. To be sure, the changes have taken place within a huge pool of voters that totals 96 million in the party registration

In a recent Crystal Ball article, Michael Baudinet of the University of Virginia Center for Politics argued that despite a very difficult national political environment for Republicans, John McCain has a good chance of winning the 2008 presidential election because he enjoys one key advantage over his Democratic rival, Barack Obama: McCain clinched his party’s nomination three months earlier than Obama. Baudinet presents data showing that the candidate who secured his party’s nomination first has won nine of the last ten presidential elections. Wrapping up the nomination early is a significant advantage, according to the article, because it allows a candidate more time to unite his party and prepare for the general election campaign. An analysis of the Nomination Gap data presented shows that there is a fairly strong relationship between what he labels the Nomination Gap and the results of recent presidential elections. For the ten presidential elections that he includes in his article, the correlation between the vote for the president’s party and the Nomination Gap is .60 (I recoded the “nomination gap” variable so that its direction was consistent with party control of the presidency). But for the same elections the correlation between the vote for the

Nobody now knows the exact contours of the November 4th Electoral College map. Nobody will know them until after the polls have closed. But except for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations, there’s no greater fun to be had in July. So the Crystal Ball is pleased to unveil our best estimates more than four months before the balloting. As always, we’ll be revising the map all the way up to the campaign’s end. As everyone says, the map is due for some changes after a remarkably static Red-and-Blue divide. Only three states changed hands from 2000 to 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, and these three states were relative squeakers both times. It is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides in 2008. Still, that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme. If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances. An early-summer mapping simply has to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let’s say with the winner receiving 52 percent or less of the two-party vote (with all third party votes excluded from the calculation).

Want to fix an election? No, I’m not proposing any Election Day shenanigans, but rather some preventive maintenance for a very old machine. Our system of electing a President is nothing short of chaotic, and it can be confusing even to the most seasoned political observer. Goodness knows, it could be done better, from shortening the election season to better organizing the nominating calendar to reshaping the Electoral College. All these aspects of the election process are being widely discussed, and maybe before too long, we’ll act on some proposed changes. But there is one concealed time bomb buried in the Constitution that is receiving no attention at all. This is no minor hitch. In fact, it’s a disaster awaiting us, if not this November then almost certainly in some future November. And it could even happen this fall. It’s early, but right now John McCain is doing well in New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), which President Bush lost in 2004. Barack Obama is doing well in Colorado (9), Iowa (5), and New Mexico (5), all of which John Kerry lost in 2004. If those four states switch sides, with the other states remaining where they were on election night

Much has been made in the past of presidential candidates’ campaign theme songs, but there would be no more appropriate choice for this year’s Republican nominee, John McCain, than the Rolling Stones’ classic, “Time Is on My Side.” Political observers, including your Crystal Ball, are virtually unanimous in their assessment that the prevailing conditions this fall are ideal for sending a Democrat to the Oval Office. We have, however, argued here that McCain can still win, and he has one built-in advantage over his eventual opponent that bears noting–time. John McCain was the Republican standard-bearer for three months while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to battle for the Democratic nomination. This afforded him several key opportunities: first, it allowed his (comparatively) impoverished campaign the opportunity to raise money, while his Democratic opponents spent their resources against each other, rather than him. Second, it gave him time to work toward bringing the GOP’s disgruntled conservative base into his camp. Third, it provided him the first opportunity to define himself and his opponents. For example, one of his first acts after securing the nomination was to take a tour abroad–meeting foreign leaders, visiting Iraq, etc.–to solidify his appearance as the experienced

A question that keeps arising in connection with this year’s presidential race is why, given the extremely favorable political environment for Democrats, Barack Obama has not been able to establish a clear lead over John McCain in national polls. Based on President Bush’s extraordinarily low approval ratings (28 percent in the most recent Gallup Poll), a deteriorating economy, and the fact that Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years, the political environment this year appears to be one of the worst for the party in power in the past sixty years. The Electoral Barometer, a measure of national political conditions that combines these three factors, currently yields a reading of -62, which is similar to that received by Jimmy Carter prior to his decisive loss to Ronald Reagan. Yet according to the most recent realclearpolitics.com average, Barack Obama is only leading John McCain by about four percentage points in recent national polls. Should we place more weight on polls showing a neck and neck race between Obama and McCain or indicators of the political environment that predict a decisive victory for the Democratic candidate? In order to answer this question, I used data on the results

For the first time in 40 years, the Democrats and Republicans are each on the verge of nominating a candidate who failed to attract even half of their party’s primary vote. Counting fully sanctioned, half sanctioned, and non-binding primaries, Barack Obama took 47 percent of this year’s Democratic vote and was matched virtually ballot for ballot by his tenacious rival, Hillary Clinton. In the process, Obama raised considerable doubt as to whether he can consolidate the portions of the Democratic base – women, working-class whites and Hispanics – that went overwhelmingly for Clinton. But the ability to hold together the party base is a question that also can be asked of the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, John McCain. He too this year drew a modest 47 percent of the GOP primary vote, the lowest share ever for a Republican nominee since the primary-oriented nominating process took root in the 1970s. The Arizona senator showed particular weakness in the GOP heartland – losing much of the South to Mike Huckabee and a large swath of the Rocky Mountain region to Mitt Romney. In their duration, the Democratic and Republican nominating campaigns this year were distinctly different. The Democratic race was a throwback

Justin M. Sizemore, the latest guest contributor to the Crystal Ball, is a University of Virginia alumnus and attorney who will also author a chapter on the Democratic nomination battle for Larry J. Sabato’s forthcoming book on the 2008 election, America’s Historic Marathon, to be published in 2009. The Crystal Ball is very happy to present this detailed breakdown of the recently concluded Democratic primary and caucus season. He can be contacted via email at [email protected]. Shortly before ten o’clock on the evening February 1, 2008, Barack Obama’s chartered 737 took off from Albuquerque International Airport bound for Boise, Idaho, where the Illinois senator was scheduled to hold a rally the next day. In just four days voters in twenty-two states would award 1,681 Democratic National Convention delegates, of which Idaho’s caucuses would pick eighteen. During the two-hour flight to Boise, Obama’s press handlers tried to assure traveling reporters that the candidate had not taken leave of his senses. “It may not be California,” an aide commented, “but smaller states like Idaho and Delaware add up.” Barack Obama will become the Democratic Party’s presidential standard bearer in 2008 precisely because small states – particularly small caucus states – add up.

With the long and contentious Democratic nomination race finally winding down, the attention of the media and the public is beginning to shift to the general election. In November, voters will face a choice between two rather atypical presidential candidates. For the first time in over fifty years, the party that controls the White House will not be represented by either the incumbent president or the incumbent vice-president. Instead, the Republican Party, which has seen its popularity and electoral fortunes plummet since 2004, will pin its hopes on John McCain – an individual who has frequently clashed with his own party’s leadership. And McCain’s Democratic opponent will be Barack Obama, the first African-American ever to receive a major party presidential nomination. The unusual characteristics of the two major party candidates have led to considerable uncertainty among political observers about the outlook for the November election. While President Bush’s low approval ratings and overwhelmingly negative perceptions of the economy suggest a very difficult political climate for Republicans, John McCain’s reputation as a maverick and Barack Obama’s problems uniting Democratic voters behind his candidacy have led some analysts to suggest that a Democratic victory in November is far from certain. Polling data